ArticleThe journal of ECT2026
A Computational Modeling Study of Focal Electrically Administered Seizure Therapy and Frontoparietal Electroconvulsive Therapy.
Article in The journal of ECT, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesModification of the electrode placement with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) impacts on patient outcomes, including cognitive effects. The investigation of alternative right unilateral placements (RUL) has the potential to further improve ECT outcomes by reducing cognitive side effects.
methodsThis study investigated differences in the intracerebral distribution of current density comparing the standard d'Elia right unilateral positioning (temporoparietal [TP]) with two recently developed RUL placements, focal electrically administered seizure therapy (FEAST) and frontoparietal (FP) stimulation. The strength of the electrical fields (E-fields) was compared in brain regions of interest (ROIs) implicated in both clinical and cognitive outcomes. Computational modeling was conducted in the head models of five participants with major depression who had received RUL ECT.
resultsResults showed that the FEAST and FP placements were associated with significantly less bilateral stimulation effects in regions hypothesized to be associated with memory, whereas the FP and TP placements produced significantly greater bilateral stimulation effects in some regions hypothesized to be associated with efficacy. FEAST, using a smaller anterior electrode, produced significantly greater E-fields in some ROIs associated with memory and efficacy, although those differences were much smaller in magnitude.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that both FEAST and FP may result in a superior clinical profile relative to TP. Future clinical studies are required to confirm the differences in clinical outcomes associated with the novel RUL placements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.